Chris Matthews: Hard Balls and Thick Skulls

Because watching Chris Matthews make a fool of himself is always a good time, here's a video of a typical example of what you can find on Hardball.


Chris Matthews on gay marriage is always an interesting segment (not) and I'm glad this one doesn't disappoint. Clearly, the best line in the program is the "French-Massachusetts point of view," but what I want to discuss is Matthew's chief lines. One of the guests commented how not supporting gay marriage is a bigoted position... to which Matthews says, "but we can't call everything in the past bigotry."

We can't call slavery bigoted? How about pretty much any way American society treated African Americans? Or Native Americans? Or pretty much any immigrant population over the past 100+ years? Which leads me to...

But if everybody who opposes gay marriage is a bigot, then we have a lot of bigots in this country.

Well, ya, Chris... we do. If it's taken you this long to figure out we have a lot of bigots in this country, then quite frankly I'm shocked you're in the media. Have you paid attention to anything that's happened since 1776?

It's frustrating to see people parrot the lines that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. Then, when confronted with the fact that gay people have been getting married in private ceremonies for dozens of years, they say "oh, but the state doesn't sanction that." Well, which is it? Is marriage an institution of the state or religion? Of course, we all know this answer: it's a civil right. You get your marriage certificates from town hall, not the local parish. A priest may preside over the ceremony, but that's not what this whole debate is about.

Then again, I do have a "French-Massachusetts point of view." Damn, it's tough to be enlightened.

Pride Week: Show Pride, Not Division

Chris Mason blogged about the current "controversy" surrounding this year's Pride festival. Here's the gist:

To the right of the stage that hosted the Pride Committee, Marshals, and Boston City Counselors was a group representing the Ask. Tell. Act. Coalition. During the ceremony they held a sign that read "Radical Queers Resist".The President of the Boston Pride Board of Directors, Linda DeMarco, mentioned the controversy over this years pride theme. She welcomed the demonstrators, saying that they were being true to themselves and to their idea of Pride. While her message may have been sincere, it came off as patronizing.

Maybe - and maybe she should have been, too. It's counterproductive to the extreme: we're about to see a vote on our rights - one we could very well lose - and we can't unite behind a stupid theme for Pride Week? If this is the best the gay rights movement can do, no wonder marriage rights only exist in one state in this country. No wonder we may just lose those rights, if things go wrong on June 14th.

I get that Pride could have picked a better theme for this year's events. Heck, I think themes in general are pretty stupid and usually ignored. Is coming together in "Pride" no longer good enough for a theme? I always thought "pride" itself was the theme. However, it seems to me that "radical queers" are pretty much 'resisting' for the sake of resisting - because, you know, those big, bad, baddies are, well, deciding things and stuff. (Did those people think of weighing in on a Pride theme beforehand, when the decision was being made?)

And don't get me wrong - I don't think the conventional, 'non-radical' organizations representing gay rights are doing us a whole lot of favors. In fact, I wrote a column that was deeply critical of MassEquality that appeared in InNewsWeekly as early as March. I thought it was pretty scathing. I don't have much knowledge about the people in charge of Pride festivities, but clearly they have a lot of things to learn and ought to take more community input next year, but it's a little late to complain now.

It's especially late to complain when the theme itself isn't really all that bad.

Proud to Serve:
Our Community
Our Country
Our World

And the problem is?

Pride week is an opportunity to reach out to the rest of the world. For once, the world pays a little extra attention to us. With all the free publicity, it's important to showcase to everyone all the many positive aspects we add to the human collective. Just like any other part of humanity, society is nothing without its gay members. Non-GLBT people are a lot more likely to support us if they know we support them in our community, country and world. We are some of this country's best volunteers and community activists and have been for decades forever. As hardworking and equal participants in this world, we deserve equal treatment in whatever avenues we pursue.

Is the theme militaristic? It can certainly be interpreted that way - and, gee whiz, I wonder why? Maybe because this country is deeply discriminatory toward its military forces. Many people consider repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell almost as important as DOMA.

I'm one of those people. Gay members of the military already serve - and they ought to be able to be out and proud, not forced in the closet, living in fear. There are over one million gblt veterans. There are probably tens of thousands of glbt soldiers in Iraq today, fighting because they were ordered to - even if most of us don't like the war.

Part of the reason this "controversy" frustrates me is because people who are against it seem to be saying that because this war is bad, or because war is bad, we shouldn't have this theme. Well, the theme isn't about Iraq or war or anything of the sort. It's about service - and gay people already serve in the military. Shouldn't they be able to do so proudly?

I'm against this war and have been from the start. If we had the numbers, I'd advocate impeaching President Bush and Dick Cheney. I'd give Donald Rumsfeld over to Geneva, if they asked. Clearly, I have strong feelings about this, but that doesn't mean I'll join in the small chorus that's against this year's theme.

We have a military in this country. Gay people want to serve in it. Gay people are serving in it, in the tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands). Heck, I know a few of them. That said, every year hundreds of gay people are thrown out of the institution they've been so willing to serve: their dishonorable discharge allows the government to strip any benefits they should recieve as veterans after the discharge. It's demeaning, homophobic, stupid, sad and everything in between. I wouldn't be shocked if some career military people have had their entire lives ruined, losing everything (pensions, health benefits, housing, etc), because of a dishonorable discharge.

Obviously, Don't Ask Don't Tell is important. We've finally seen a lot of political will to get rid of it this year, at least before Marty Meehan announced he was going to retire. It's one of the last frontiers in the battle for full equality and we have a democratic House and Senate that ought to be removing the law. If Boston's Pride event wants to touch on that importance, kudos to them. With the press that Pride festivals will receive, perhaps it could remind people about the inequalities that still exist today. After the Goodridge decision, many people in Massachusetts have deluded themselves into thinking equality has been reached - and they need to be corrected.

What disturbs me most of all is the fact that the people who are making a big stink about this are being very hypocritical. They're the same people who have pointed out that groups like MassEquality have focused exclusively on marriage equality, to the detriment of dozens of other exceptionally important issues - and the people they effect. Obviously, to anyone who read my InNewsWeekly column, I wholeheartedly agree: MassEquality has a lot to learn, as does HRC, as do any number of prominent GLBT organizations. The dissenters are also the same people who routinely point out that many who claim to be a part of the GLBTQ movement are a little too worried about GL and not BTQ - something I also agree with.

Yet, now they're essentially saying that the military is bad and we shouldn't have this message - when there are thousands of people who fall under our "umbrella" that serve - and would like to serve openly, with Pride, but can't. Are we going to say that transgendered people deserve more respect, but not gay people serving in the military? Should we push harder for the quest to eliminate workplace discrimination - and not care at all that gay people are discriminated against in the military every day? We may not like the fact that many glbt people choose to serve, but they do - and we should support them, just as we would Log Cabin Republicans. It's what an inclusive movement would do.

The message certain people are sending by being so vehemently against this year's Pride Parade is far worse - and far more divisive - than anything Boston Pride did, even if they clearly aren't perfect. This is a time where we need to be fighting for everyone in the movement and not excluding anyone. Just days before the Constitutional Convention that will decide our most basic right to marriage equality as gay citizens of this state, this is a time to be united. Instead, we tear each other apart - days before our relationships may be at risk to being torn apart too. This is a time to work together. This is a time to show the world just why we deserve equal status in all realms of society, from marriage to the rights to serve our military with both honor and pride.

Go to the Pride events. Go there with whatever message you want. But, for the sake of all that's at risk, let's not attack one another days before June 14th for not having the "right" message. This isn't math class; contrary to popular belief, there's plenty of room for grey on a Pride Parade float. Let's not give the MassResistances out there that kind of unnecessary fodder. They'd want nothing more to see than infighting in the gay rights movement - that's how people like them win. Life is too short and way too important for us to be tearing each other apart. Ask, Tell, Act... Serve. Do whatever you want and can to make sure our community is working cohesively to both protect and expand our rights as basic human beings during one of the most important moments our movement has ever seen in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The Day I Met Peter Porcupine

The day I met Peter Porcupine, I had no idea who (s)he was. Not only did I not know who Peter was in person, but I didn't really read Peter's blogs or know that (s)he paid that much attention to my own. Sure, Peter left a few comments, but as far as I was concerned, Peter was the homophobic, Republican talking-head everyone kept saying (s)he was - and why shouldn't I believe it?

*****

It was about 8pm and I was going to one of Deval Patrick's civil engagement meetings he held across the state, just after being elected. This one was at UMASS Dartmouth, in the Foster Administration Building. Picture unwelcoming, cold concrete with a small room and about fifty people packed in it. All of a sudden, a stranger went to shake my hand and said hello. "You know me as Peter Porcupine," the person said.

Peter was very friendly for someone I was told was so, well, not.

I've never been the type to be hoodwinked by people who are fakely nice. It's something I can usually spot from a mile away. I'm sure there are people who are more skilled in asshat detection than I am, but there's been nothing Peter Porcupine has ever done to indicate (s)he was as closed-minded and homophobic as is often portrayed in the blogosphere. (S)he didn't have to introduce herself to me; (s)he did that of her own volition.

I'll readily admit there are a whole host of issues where (s)he sees night and I see day, but that doesn't mean I'm going to join in the circus of outing Peter. It's one thing to out the real homophobic people - a la Mark Foley - but (s)he's not Mark Foley. While (s)he does support an up-or-down vote, (s)he would vote against a ban. Furthermore, (s)he's exactly the kind of person who could actually convince others of that ilk to vote against any ban if we can't bridge the current four-vote gap - something I'll publicly call for her to do if it gets to that point.

Don't get me wrong. I don't have tea with this person. I don't support blanket anonymity. There may even be legitimate conflicts of interest in Peter having a pseudonym. However, I don't see these recent posts about the real identity of Peter being about any of those potential conflicts. Indeed, QueerToday went so far as to suggest she may be getting ready to stalk queer youth - a serious assertion with absolutely no basis in fact. We're being just as bitter towards her as so many right-wingers are toward us - and that bitterness seems just as utterly pointless as Pat Robertson's drivel or Ann Coulter's existence. It seems to me that some people are revealing Peter's identity for merely for the sake of revealing Peter's identity, as if it were the best weapon to use against Peter.

However, this weapon being wielded against Peter Porcupine seems to me like a double-edged sword. Peter Porcupine should come out of the alias closet - when QueerToday's FireCrotch, Pryncess Shaniqua, Becca D'Bus, Madam V, Queer Jay and everyone from Mass Left blogs who don't use their whole names start the trend. Otherwise, Team Equality is being awfully hypocritical - and that's coming from one of its charter members.